Leo Chan wrote:
I know some photogs around here that give out more than 10 different prints from one shoot. More than 10! Yet I can't find a single good one out of those images.

So wait a minute.  You are saying that you want the photographer to give prints and be talented?  Interesting concept.

Cecil Sharps wrote:
Maybe i'm just old, but in the days before the internet, and digital slr's i did a few tfp's.

They didn't get 36 8x10 color glossies to put in the leather portfolio.

They got a contact sheet and a sharpie and picked out the ones they liked.  And then i dropped the negatives at the lab and printed those 4 or 5 up.

IF I'm understanding you correctly, they got a copy of each image shot - albeit on contact sheet.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

So wait a minute.  You are saying that you want the photographer to give prints and be talented?  Interesting concept.

LMAO LMAO

Leo Chan wrote:
Low quality photogs tend to give out more prints because they think every shot is good. Good photog usually like only about 2 to 5 shots in a session. . . just my 2 cents.

I guess I'm low-quality then. On the one that I referred to where I sent her about three dozen, she liked them and is eager to shoot again, so I'm happy with my low quality.

Joking aside, it was unusual for me - more than 10% in the "I'll keep it" category. Woo-hoo.

DixieGrace wrote:
Personally, I would prefer quality shots rather than quantity, especially if you took the time to edit them to make them flawless....but not everyone holds the same opinion.

My type of model, someone who appreciates that there is an artistry to her work.

Handing over ALL the images communicates that they all have equal value.

Terry

Maura wrote:
What I do ask for, and in advance, is a disc of ALL my images in full resolution.

I'd be curious to follow your progress as I know of no photographers who will hand over a disk of unedited shots.

markcomp wrote:

I'd be curious to follow your progress as I know of no photographers who will hand over a disk of unedited shots.

No good ones anyway.

markcomp wrote:

I'd be curious to follow your progress as I know of no photographers who will hand over a disk of unedited shots.

Well I'm not a newbie to modeling and I can honestly say that almost every single photographer that has shot with me strictly TfCD has provided me with 2, 3 and even 4 cds of unedited images. As a bonus, they've thrown in 7 or so edited images. Maybe it's just my charisma?
Or perhaps I've just been lucky, but working under those conditions, those are now the stipulations I hold for the average photographer who wants to shoot for trade. Had I never been spoiled this way by photographers, I wouldve never known any better and not been inclined to step on any toes... but hey, it works out for me and I would never abuse of the trust of the photographer who hands over raw images, so everybody's pretty happy as far as I've ever known.

Maura wrote:
...(snip)

What I do ask for, and in advance, is a disc of ALL my images in full resolution. Those thumbnail web resolution pics photogs try to hand over just don't cut it with me.  If we are both working for free and in exchange for portfolio images, why should the photographer decide which are the best photographs of me and that I can only have a few of those retouched  to his or her liking?  I should have the same exact images in the same exact format that the photographer has to use. I'm sure some percentage of the time, they'll get sold as stock photography regardless of what I sign and I'll never know it, and the photographer earns money for the time he spent shooting with me... I won't bitch and moan about it, as long as I get to photoshop or choose which images I want photoshopped, and permission to host my image wherever I please. These are my standards for working free of charge for photos that are intended to benefit both parties. There are always exceptions, such as some ridiculous big shot giving me the honor of shooting with him free of charge - obviously beggars can't be choosers in such situations... but some no name with a release isn't gonna F me over ever again. My time is valuable too and a trade shoot should be a fair collaboration unless otherwise agreed upon.
TFCD/TFP is tricky.. everybody is always out for themselves, and that's expected, but photographers getting all righteous and testy with models over it is equally as obnoxious to us as silly, demanding models are to them.

Wow, Maura, you sound like you've had some pretty horrible experiences with past photographers.  I don't model (although I could cuz I'm gorgeous!  J/K), but if I did, I might have a better perspective of what models go through.  However, I can tell you I won't work with any model who requires I turn over ALL the shots we took that day.  I don't want any photos I took that poorly represent my work floating out there on the internet.  You used the word "MY" when describing the shots from your shoots, but the bottom line is, they belong to the photographer no matter how much of you is in them.

You also questioned why the photographer should be the one to decide which photos you get.  I consider myself in a better position (as the photographer) to determine what best represents the both of us in my shots.  I'm not saying ALL photographers do a good job at this, but I wouldn't let a model tell me which photos best represent my work.  Most of them have no experience with the basic tenets of photography, lighting, and posing, so why would I allow them to pick the photos?  I WILL, however, let them give me a selection of photos, and I'll weed out the ones that don't work photographically.  I'll also suggest alternative shots to replace the ones I weeded out.

Lastly, I kind of took exception to your claim that "everybody is out for themselves".  I pride myself on giving models a pretty good deal and collaborating with them as much as possible so we both benefit.  Every model I work with gets pre-cropped 8x10 and 5x7 high-res edited images and 3-5 prints.  I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences, but let's not generalize here.

Frisson wrote:

No good ones anyway.

That's a pretty low thing to say. Many of the photographers I have worked with are well-established and internationally published. That they do not guard their raw images with their life should not be an indication of their incompetency as a photographer... Should I do something to disgrace their work, all they'd have to do is sue my ass. Being anal does not equate being a good photographer.

the photographer should be the one to decide which photos you get.  I consider myself in a better position (as the photographer) to determine what best represents the both of us in my shots.  I'm not saying ALL photographers do a good job at this, but I wouldn't let a model tell me which photos best represent my work.  Most of them have no experience with the basic tenets of photography, lighting, and posing, so why would I allow them to pick the photos?  I WILL, however, let them give me a selection of photos, and I'll weed out the ones that don't work photographically.  I'll also suggest alternative shots to replace the ones I weeded out.

Lastly, I kind of took exception to your claim that "everybody is out for themselves".  I pride myself on giving models a pretty good deal and collaborating with them as much as possible so we both benefit.  I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences, but let's not generalize here.

I see what you're saying,  and I understand what legally belongs to the photographer, but I only feel bound to those laws when somebody is paying somebody... and that is why I specified that these are my personal standards when shooting for trade. I have bad experiences, yes, but I've since then worked with very cooperative photographers who meet me in the middle and understand the model's side of the bargain. In trade instances, it is my opinion that both the model AND the photographer agree on the best images before they are out in the open. Working for trade is optional, and when I do opt to do so, I work things out with photographers who will let me in on the final products. I can't chance it anymore, it isn't worth it. I ask for all copies if my images to keep tabs on what is out there of me, not to microsoft paint and defame anybody's work. I may be deemed a tainted snob for it, but this is my stance on TFCD. My apologies for generalizing, I just wanted to share my thoughts.

Maura wrote:
That's a pretty low thing to say. Many of the photographers I have worked with are well-established and internationally published. That they do not guard their raw images with their life should not be an indication of their incompetency as a photographer... Should I do something to disgrace their work, all they'd have to do is sue my ass. Being anal does not equate being a good photographer.

It's not anal, it's called quality control.

My approach to TFP is somewhere between what you expect and what you fear.

My last two models had a choice of 24 from 100 pre-selected images. PLUS images I thought were great. Not a bad deal at all.

Being internationally published does not make you a great photographer. It makes you published.

Terry

Frisson wrote:

It's not anal, it's called quality control.

My approach to TFP is somewhere between what you expect and what you fear.

My last two models had a choice of 24 from 100 pre-selected images. PLUS images I thought were great. Not a bad deal at all.

Being internationally published does not make you a great photographer. It makes you published.

Terry

Terry, I can agree with that also, lots of shitty photographers get published and lots of ugly models get paid... just pointing out that there's no need to "generalize" as I've been told. It's all a matter of opinions, I suppose. Quality control to you might be complete nonsense to someone just as brilliant as yourself.

Maura wrote:

That's a pretty low thing to say. Many of the photographers I have worked with are well-established and internationally published. That they do not guard their raw images with their life should not be an indication of their incompetency as a photographer... Should I do something to disgrace their work, all they'd have to do is sue my ass. Being anal does not equate being a good photographer.

Since RAW images are the digital equivalence of a negative I have to stick to my first statement and say that I find it hard to believe they actually give you RAW unedited shots.

markcomp wrote:

Since RAW images are the digital equivalence of a negative I have to stick to my first statement and say that I find it hard to believe they actually give you RAW unedited shots.

I don't know what I'd have to say to convince you otherwise, but at the end of most shoots (immediately upon wrapping up) I have been given CDs of digital negatives and then told to pick a few favorites for editing. I've never had a problem doing things this way nor has the photographer who has handed over the images. Perhaps this is only an occasional thing that these photographers do and maybe I'm privy to it because I've had the audacity to ask since I realized it was an option some photographers would grant... I don't know, but it's what I ask of photographers who approach me for trade. I understand it's not always going to be possible and I'm not entirely above cooperating with a photographer's values... I can respect the concept of quality control as long as I can also part-take in the selection of the final images. What would be the point of a trade for the model if she was given images that in her opinion do not do her justice but that the photographer thinks is amazing due to lighting or whatever else photographers take into consideration when deciding what their best work is.
Honestly, does anyone see where I am coming from or am I the biblehumper at the gay pride parade?

markcomp wrote:
Since RAW images are the digital equivalence of a negative I have to stick to my first statement and say that I find it hard to believe they actually give you RAW unedited shots.

Maura wrote:
I don't know what I'd have to say to convince you otherwise, but at the end of most shoots (immediately upon wrapping up) I have been given CDs of digital negatives and then told to pick a few favorites for editing. I've never had a problem doing things this way nor has the photographer who has handed over the images.

Oops, miscommunication here.  When she is talking about raw images, she means the JPG's just as they came out of the camera without any editing.

Mark, when you are talking about RAW, you mean RAW format, which must be editied before they are even reasonably usable.

I am not sure she understands the difference in the terminology.  I know of photographers who will give the model a CD of the JPG's right after the shoot.  Most don't but some do so I undersand what she is trying to say.

markcomp wrote:

I'd be curious to follow your progress as I know of no photographers who will hand over a disk of unedited shots.

I agree with Maura and disagree with you, since I have worked with several photographers(published and excellent work) that have handed me a CD with all images of our shoot and I have done my own retouch(since I am Photoshop friendly:). These photographers have no problem in doing so since it is TFP, meaning no money spent on their side to make prints or time photoshoping pictures for me and for them(sometimes different ones). It is easier to handle a CD with all the pics in very large format, straight from the camera.
If I want prints I can pay for them, it makes life easier since I shoot trade for content and need large sets for the web.

FemmeArt wrote:
I recently did a TFP shoot with a model.  I provided her with 20 retouched images--good ones.  Although the model was very happy with the images, she wrote and had the nerve to say, "There were only 20 edited pics on the cd.  Where are the rest of the pics?"

I typically give no more than 10 edited images from a TFP.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

In my opinion the Model is right to request more images because you both did not have a agreement before the shoot. Nothing else you can do about it.
Try to please her and cut your losses or negotiate using the argument that more images of the same look are not valuable for her portfolio.
2 images per look is the standard on my contracts.
They can choose from the proofs, and I do few exceptions but really few.

Maura wrote:

I don't know what I'd have to say to convince you otherwise, but at the end of most shoots (immediately upon wrapping up) I have been given CDs of digital negatives and then told to pick a few favorites for editing. I've never had a problem doing things this way nor has the photographer who has handed over the images. Perhaps this is only an occasional thing that these photographers do and maybe I'm privy to it because I've had the audacity to ask since I realized it was an option some photographers would grant... I don't know, but it's what I ask of photographers who approach me for trade. I understand it's not always going to be possible and I'm not entirely above cooperating with a photographer's values... I can respect the concept of quality control as long as I can also part-take in the selection of the final images. What would be the point of a trade for the model if she was given images that in her opinion do not do her justice but that the photographer thinks is amazing due to lighting or whatever else photographers take into consideration when deciding what their best work is.
Honestly, does anyone see where I am coming from or am I the biblehumper at the gay pride parade?

I see where you are coming from but since copyright always belongs to the photographer I can't see any reason for giving a RAW file away.
Think of it this way, if you were a model ten years ago and asked the photographer for his negatives would he give them to you?
I am not saying photographers have not given you RAW files, I am saying they are foolish for doing so.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Oops, miscommunication here.  When she is talking about raw images, she means the JPG's just as they came out of the camera without any editing.

Mark, when you are talking about RAW, you mean RAW format, which must be editied before they are even reasonably usable.

I am not sure she understands the difference in the terminology.  I know of photographers who will give the model a CD of the JPG's right after the shoot.  Most don't but some do so I undersand what she is trying to say.

Yes! Okay, this makes more sense... and no, I was not aware of the difference, but yes, I am talking about the full-size, high-resolution JPGs, completely unedited, burned onto CD(s) and handed to me to take home.
Now that that's clarified, is there still an issue with a photographer releasing those to me? I assume it's practically the same thing ethically speaking, but now I don't even know...

Maura wrote:

Yes! Okay, this makes more sense... and no, I was not aware of the difference, but yes, I am talking about the full-size, high-resolution JPGs, completely unedited, burned onto CD(s) and handed to me to take home.
Now that that's clarified, is there still an issue with a photographer releasing those to me? I assume it's practically the same thing ethically speaking, but now I don't even know...

Forget my last post as this now changes everything.

Iona Lynn wrote:
Yes Maura the issue with full res cd's is that you are able to print any of those images at any lowend print shop, on your home printer, and pass them off as quality work.
or you can take the set and falsly submit it to other websites for payment. Gaining income you did not earn.
photographers who value the quality of their work do not release every image the only release the highest quality.

It is like a band releasing all the recording takes at a studio not the finished album,

K I follow what you're saying... but I still have to wonder if that makes a difference when shooting trade for portfolio purposes only...  If the photog doesn't run off and sell my images stock or misrepresent me in any way, and I agree to not go profit from or tamper with an image shot by said photographer, what is the danger in giving me the full-size JPEGS? Or were you speaking generally and hypothetically? I have never and will never mess with a photographer's work... However, if they go make a pretty penny off some pics we took for trade, I might just gauzian blur (or whatever the hell it's called), paste in some turds, watermark the image with the photographers name and  send it out to my 14000 myspace pals.
Jk. I can come up with something better than that.

Maura wrote:
Well I'm not a newbie to modeling and I can honestly say that almost every single photographer that has shot with me strictly TfCD has provided me with 2, 3 and even 4 cds of unedited images. As a bonus, they've thrown in 7 or so edited images. Maybe it's just my charisma?

Maybe you're lucky, but I would say that a photographer who needs seven blank CDs to fit all of the images they shot of you in one shoot is most likely not someone to be clamouring to work with. Even if these are very high-resolution files, that would still be hundreds of photos, and in my experience, the photographers who need to take hundreds of shots in one session and then just hand over all of the images, unedited, are not talented - they're LAZY.
Too lazy to take the time to properly compose and expose an image the first time, so they have to keep taking the same shot over and over and over, and too lazy to take the time to do even minimal Photoshop to make the photos look as good as possible, for both parties.
Is that the kind of work you want in your portfolio? The kind of photographers you want to be known for working with?
You might find good images in there, but first you have to comb through every shot, and, if have the skills, you'll have to do all of the Photoshopping yourself.
(I know photographers throw fits at the mere idea of models Photoshopping their work, but in my personal opinion, if you refuse to do it yourself, you've sufficiently proven that you don't really care. If you don't care enough to make the photo look good, why do you care if the model tries to do it on your behalf? If you give a model an image that is pretty good, but features, say, a prominent zit on her face, which would you prefer - that she edit it out herself, or just not put it in her portfolio at all? I guess the third option would be for the model to post it as-is, zit and all, but most models, myself included, would NOT take this option, and understandably so.)
I guess I don't understand why a model would rather have EVERY shot, even the really bad ones, than have a few that are actually flattering. What exactly are you planning on doing with those bad photos?

[edit] At the same time, there is this tone among some photographers in this thread that models should feel lucky to get any images at all, scoffing at model's "demands," etc. It's been pointed out before, but it should be reiterated: If a model isn't being paid and isnt getting good images, or a quantity agreed on as fair in advance, why should she work with you? Or should we just feel blessed that any photographer is willing to grace us with their presence at all, oh lordy?

tgimaging wrote:
IF I'm understanding you correctly, they got a copy of each image shot - albeit on contact sheet.

Not in my case. The model got to look at every shot taken. They mark the shots they like for my consideration and give the contact sheet back after a critique from the agency. This was until a few models didn't give the contact sheets back. Then I stop letting them take the contact sheets period. The model should get to see all the shots. But only the finished prints are released.

I tend to not like having color blind significant others printing my shots out on tissue paper from their free printers with the magenta ink gone and streaky print nozzles and then showing them off. Nor are WalMart prints or even custom labs prints (sometimes) any better. Some don't spot their prints for dust specks. I do have a signed, written agreement that says I can revoke usaged if the quality of any copies are not up to quality. Nor can my files be re-sampled, altered or changed.

Have given six or seven models complete contact sheets. This means that every single picture was perfect. It's a very special reward for a perfect session. At one time, this was considered a special achivement for a model - a series of perfect contact sheets in their book.